In what may appear in a movie or a cartoon, a big rig containing over 5000 chickens ran into another big rig tossing thousands of chickens held in crates all over Interstate 80 near Vacaville this morning at around 2 am. The freeway was naturally closed so that the police could gather and catch the chickens.
The accident was the result of the driver carrying the chickens falling asleep and his car swerving into the other lane hitting the other rig.
Some 45% of red-light camera tickets issued in Los Angeles are currently unpaid, partly because holds are not placed on driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations for unsettled photo enforcement infractions, city officials said Wednesday.
The disclosure came as City Controller Wendy Greuel issued an audit that found the photo enforcement program bypassed some of the city’s most dangerous intersections and costs the city more than $1 million a year to operate, despite fines and fees that can exceed $500 per infraction.
LAPD officials said they learned during the audit that the state Department of Motor Vehicles has not been forcing payment of delinquent red-light camera fines during license and registration renewals. Other types of citations typically must be paid before renewals are granted, said Chief Charlie Beck, who appeared with Greuel at a news conference beneath a downtown red-light camera.
A DMV spokesman said motorists issued photo citations do not sign promises to appear in court, which are standard with moving violations issued by traffic officers. It is a failure to appear or pay the fine after signing a ticket that typically triggers a hold on a driver’s license renewal, said agency spokesman Armando Botello. He also said Los Angeles County Superior Court had not forwarded hold requests to the DMV for red-light camera tickets.
Governor Schwarzenegger has signed a measure that will allow Californians with environmentally friendly cars to drive solo in carpool lanes. This will permit tens of thousands of citizen to access the carpool lanes.
A study released Friday by The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project says adults and teenagers are equally likely to have texted while driving. And adults are more likely to have chatted on their phones while driving.
The study found that 47 percent of adults who text reported sending or reading texts while behind the wheel.
The study also found that adults are much more likely to chat on their phones while driving: 75 percent of adults with mobile phones said they talked and drove. 52% of teenagers with cell phones said they did so in last year’s study.
That would translate into a finding that 61% of all United States adults talk on the phone while driving, while the 2009 study indicates that 43% of all 16 and 17 year old.
Even when not driving, adults are still engrossed in their phones: The study said that 17 percent of adults who have cell phones reported walking into other people or things because they were so busy using their phones to text or chat.
The survey used telephone interviews with 2,252 adults between April 29 and May 30. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
So don’t blame or think that only teenagers are the ones committing all the text and talking on the phone violations while driving. You might want to look in the mirror first before you criticize your kids.
The statute that grants the right and set forth the guidelines for the establishment and maintenance of a traffic light camera is Vehicle Code Section 21455.5. That section states
21455.5. (a) The limit line, the intersection, or a place designated in Section 21455, where a driver is required to stop, may be equipped with an automated enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Identifies the system by signs that clearly indicate the system’s presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all directions, or posts signs at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes
(2) If it locates the system at an intersection, and ensures that the system meets the criteria specified in Section 21455.7.
(b) Prior to issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program.
(c) Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system. As used in this subdivision, “operate” includes all of the following activities:
(1) Developing uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations and for the processing and storage of confidential information, and establishing procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines.
(2) Performing administrative functions and day-to-day functions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Establishing guidelines for selection of location.
(B) Ensuring that the equipment is regularly inspected.
(C) Certifying that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated, and is operating properly.
(D) Regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs placed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
(E) Overseeing the establishment or change of signal phases and the timing thereof.
(F) Maintaining controls necessary to assure that only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered to violators.
(d) The activities listed in subdivision (c) that relate to the operation of the system may be contracted out by the governmental agency, if it maintains overall control and supervision of the system. However, the activities listed in paragraph (1) of, and subparagraphs (A), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision (c) may not be contracted out to the manufacturer or supplier of the automated enforcement system.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other provision of law, photographic records made by an automated enforcement system shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies and only for the purposes of this article.
(2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration or enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and may not be used for any other purpose.
(3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, the confidential records and information described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or until final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed in a manner that will preserve the confidentiality of any person included in the record or information.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (d) , the registered owner or any individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
(g) (1) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004.
A Swiss court fine a driver $290,000.00 for driving 35 miles an hour faster than the 50 mile an hour speed limit.
The highest previous Swiss fine was about $107,000.00.
Some of the factors that contributed to the excessive fine was that the man was a repeat offender. The Court also based the fine based on the man’s wealth of over $20 million.
Just makes you think twice about speeding in Switzerland does it?
Engineering and traffic survey (ETS) are conducted on all roadways. The ETS gives you the speed that is considered dangerous at each particular section on a given road. The considered dangerous speed listed in the ETS is not the posted speed limit.
Each ETS is good for 7 years.
If you are ticketed for going 45 mph in a posted 35 mph area and the ETS dangerous speed is 37 mph, you are considered over the considered safe speed. Is in it self will be the basis for your guilt unless you can find a basis to challeging the ETS or have other circumstances that allow you to go faster.
Its not always cheap to fight your speeding ticket. In order to flight your speeding ticket, you have to post bail. For your routine misdemeanor, your bail could be around $150.00. The reason I used the word “could” is because even the Judge doesn’t know the correct amount.
Here is how it works. If you decide to fight your ticket, you have to appear at your arraignment hearing and enter your plead. You don’t necessary have to attend the hearing. You can mail a letter to the court and notify them that you intend to plead not guilty and ask for a trial date. The law states that you are entitled to a trial within 30 days but because of budget limitations, it can’t be provided so you will be asked to waive your rights to the 30 day rule.
Ok lets get back to the arraignment hearing. At the hearing, the bailot will call you up to talk to the Judge. The Judge will tell you what you are charge with and ask you how you plead. If you plead not guilty, he will instruct the clerk to assign you a trial date and set your bail. The bail amount will always include a number of administrative fees that the Judge will not even know about. He will give you a estimated amount.
If you can’t afford to pay the entire amount that day, you can ask for a limited extension. At most the Judge can grant you about 10 days, which isn’t much. You have to pay the entire amount if you want to go to trial. If you fail to pay it you can get a warrant out for your arrest.
The Court is going to impose a high bail amount to get you to avoid fighting it.
If you win your case then you get your money back. If you lose then that amount is applied to your ticket fine.
Traffic School is granted at the discretion of the Judge. I know many of you have heard that you can only get traffic school once every 18 months. But there are two types of traffic school.
Generally, if you get a ticket in California, you can go to traffic school for 8 hours and get the ticket dismissed from your record. This allow you to avoid any points on your driving record towards losing your license.
California Vehicle Code provides that if you ahve attended an eight hour class in the past 12 months you can go back to traffic school for 12 hours at the discretion of the judge. To get it you have to appear in court and nicely and politely ask the judge if they would grant you the right. The Vehicle Code gives the judge discretion to do so.
Section 41501 of the California Vehicle Code, specifically states.
(a) If the offense is alleged to have been committed within 12 months of another offense which was dismissed under this section, the court may order the continuance and, after the attendance, dismiss the complaint. The court may order attendance at a licensed school for traffic violators which offers a program of at least 12 hours of instruction.
(b) If the offense is not alleged to have occurred within 12 months of another offense which was dismissed under this section, the court may order the continuance and, after the attendance, dismiss the complaint if the attendance is at any of the types of schools or programs that the court directed pursuant to Section 42005 at the time of ordering the continuance.
Once you have attended your 12 hour class, your record will state that your case was dismissed by traffic school. (T/S Violation Date).
There is also what is know as Defensive Driving Classes but we will get into that on another occassion.
Speed traps are tools for enforcing speed regulations. The goal to deter fast traffic for safety reasons and/or maximizing revenue through speeding tickets. We have seen police officers hidden from motorists’ view on several road locations holding speed radar guns waiting for would be violators of the speed limit. In recent times, the position occupied by uniformed officers has been replaced by speed cameras that record information of speeding violations.
Speed traps have been used by governments for years. Ever since the radar gun came out, law enforcers have jumped on the opportunity to entrap motorists for violating speed limits that are often absurdly low by standards. At times, confusing or the lack of traffic/speed limit signs contribute to woe of motorists and are used extensively by uniformed officers to extort costly speeding tickets.
However, unlike other cities, California traffic law treats speed traps differently. According to California law, evidence obtained from speed traps is not admissible in court. Law enforcers need to prove at trial that you have been speeding by presenting certified engineering surveys justifying the posted speed limits. Moreover, the law considers the operation standards of devices and the police officers’ training.
Among the pertinent facts about speed traps in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) include the following:
40801 – Speed Trap Prohibition “”No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.”
40802 – Speed Trap Definition A “speed trap” is either of the following: (a) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.”
However, instead of just repealing the current laws on prohibiting the use of speed traps, the new proposed legislation tries to maintain the appearance of fair play by including the provision that speeding tickets can only be issued in areas where speed limits are too low by a police officer who would testify that the motorists’ actual speed was indeed unreasonable.